Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

No, this is entirely incorrect. 1 infection does not equal 1 hospitalization, because not everyone gets sick enough as a result to have symptoms, let alone be hospitalized for it. Hospitalizations are a fractional derivative of infections, so no it cannot correlate equally.

However if the containment protocol demands that for every worker who tests positive, every other colleague who's been in close contact with them must isolate along with them, you are looking at multiplicative losses to staffing per infection and consequently service to society.

On top of that, not every hospitalization case is equally burdensome. It all begins and ends with the severity of the disease, an incidental finding of infection on an unrelated admission may tally the same on the stats, but its not the same as a lengthy stay in an ICU or oxygen ward either in terms of risk to the patient or the resource cost for their treatment.

And again no, daily infections are already way higher than the delta peak in the UK.

I don't think you understood what F FireFly was saying. The key word is "for a given hospitalization rate". That has nothing to do with suggesting 1 infection equals 1 hospitalization. It has to do with relative values and proportional grown of dependent variables.

 

[sinnergy]

See , services that cannot be provided, just like I posted pages ago.. but others knew better ..

It's all connected, if you have a million infections a day In a couple of weeks, the USA will come to a stand still .. and hospitalizations will also be sky high ..

But hey it's just simple math (except the CDC agrees) others here are masters at math

 

[Rentahamster]

In the UK, a higher percentage of COVID19 cases are incidental, which means that the primary reason they're in the hospital isn't COVID19 - they just happen to have it but are in the hospital for a different reason. A good sign.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's all connected, if you have a million infections a day In a couple of weeks, the USA will come to a stand still .. and hospitalizations will also be sky high ..

It is all connected, but the relative values between infection and hospitalization are changing. A lot of things have changed between the delta variant wave and now. More people are vaccinated, which reduces hospitalizations. More therapeutics are available, which reduces hospitalizations. The last delta wave stimulated a lot of "natural immunity" that may or may not reduce omicron infections and may or may not reduce omicron hospitalizations. These effects also probably reduce the average hospital stay as well.

So far, this has seen a decoupling of cases vs hospitalizations that we haven't seen before, for whatever reason. Like I've said though, this doesn't mean that a giant increase in infections couldn't generate a hospital crisis from sheer brute force. We still don't know enough to be sure. We're not definitely out of the woods yet, but at the same time we're not definitely headed for disaster until we see more clear data that points in that direction.

 

[sinnergy]

It is all connected, but the relative values between infection and hospitalization are changing. A lot of things have changed between the delta variant wave and now. More people are vaccinated, which reduces hospitalizations. More therapeutics are available, which reduces hospitalizations. The last delta wave stimulated a lot of "natural immunity" that may or may not reduce omicron infections and may or may not reduce omicron hospitalizations. These effects also probably reduce the average hospital stay as well.

So far, this has seen a decoupling of cases vs hospitalizations that we haven't seen before, for whatever reason. Like I've said though, this doesn't mean that a giant increase in infections couldn't generate a hospital crisis from sheer brute force. We still don't know enough to be sure. We're not definitely out of the woods yet, but at the same time we're not definitely headed for disaster until we see more clear data that points in that direction.

Just wait tm.. until it's to late I am glad The Netherlands handled quick this time .

Seems NYC is going down the drain, this will be your example city (this will start to happen all in the US) , just like Amsterdam is for us , but we are in lockdown, so all is managed here for the first time since the pandemic.

 

[Rentahamster]

More promising news about the intrinsic nature of the omicron variant. Could be relatively less dangerous, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Especially to the unvaccinated.

Just wait tm.. until it's to late I am glad The Netherlands handled quick this time .

You could be right that we are fucked, but at this juncture, it wouldn't be a reasonable conclusion to reach based on the current information, in my opinion. The best you can say is that there are good signs, there are troubling signs, and still a lot more stuff we don't know and can't predict.

 

[Clear]

I don't think you understood what F FireFly was saying. The key word is "for a given hospitalization rate". That has nothing to do with suggesting 1 infection equals 1 hospitalization. It has to do with relative values and proportional grown of dependent variables.

What he was saying I took as a gross simplification. More infections, even more hospitalizations are only significant if the disease and its attendant mortality rate and treatment durations remain constant. "Hospitalization" is an indistinct metric. A person who is admitted with a broken arm, and subsequently found to be infected may count on the raw stats, but its not the same as a very sick person with multiple co-morbidities needing to be managed, circling the drain for weeks on an oxygenation ward.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yet another ivermectin debunk. It probably didn't do anything in Uttar Pradesh. It probably didn't do anything in Japan, either.

I've spent years talking about confounding factors in my writing, and presumably anyone reading this is aware that you can't necessarily take a single correlation from a graph and assume that it represents a causal relationship. It's rarely that simple.

The one thing we can be quite sure of is that ivermectin probably had little to no impact on the number of people who had coronavirus infections in Uttar Pradesh. Even if we were to assume that ivermectin is a perfect prophylactic against Covid-19 — something that is almost certainly not true — the drug was given to too few people, after the cases started to decline, and that's before we even get into the messy question of how many people actually took the drugs that may or may not have been in their medical kits. On top of that, ivermectin has been in constant use in Uttar Pradesh since August 2020, so it's simply absurd to suggest that people only started taking the drug in May 2021.

There are few things we can be sure of in this pandemic, but it does seem remarkably unlikely that ivermectin did anything at all for the state of Uttar Pradesh in May 2021. The drug is an amazingly effective and quite safe treatment for parasitic infections, but does not seem to have saved any particular area from the coronavirus pandemic.

 

[Jaysen]

Who would have guessed that horse paste wasn't the answer.

 

[FireFly]

What he was saying I took as a gross simplification. More infections, even more hospitalizations are only significant if the disease and its attendant mortality rate and treatment durations remain constant. "Hospitalization" is an indistinct metric. A person who is admitted with a broken arm, and subsequently found to be infected may count on the raw stats, but its not the same as a very sick person with multiple co-morbidities needing to be managed, circling the drain for weeks on an oxygenation ward.

You can define the "true hospitalisation" rate however you like. It doesn't change the fact that doubling the number of infections will double the number of "true" hospitalisations, all else being equal. It's just basic maths.

And yes, treatments are improving all the time, and we are getting more immunity in the population, so that the hospitalisation rate is expected to go down further. But to keep pace with doubling cases, we'd need the hospitalisation rate to be halving over the same time period.

 

[Rentahamster]

It looks like Robert Malone got suspended by Twitter. That dude was really testing the line. He got way too much traction given his credentials and was distributing a lot of misinformation.




edit: Bret's not happy about this

 

[Malakhov]

Finally got COVID from the kids. A cold with a headache and I can't taste anything which is my biggest deception so far

Omicron, more like endemic

 

[RoboFu]

It's getting pretty sickening seeing fear mongering return while deaths are the lowest they have been

 

[Nobody_Important]

It's getting pretty sickening seeing fear mongering return while deaths are the lowest they have been

I literally posted info that showed things are as bad as they were in July of last year in some ways.


Read the thread please.

 

[Belgorim]

You can define the "true hospitalisation" rate however you like. It doesn't change the fact that doubling the number of infections will double the number of "true" hospitalisations, all else being equal. It's just basic maths.

And yes, treatments are improving all the time, and we are getting more immunity in the population, so that the hospitalisation rate is expected to go down further. But to keep pace with doubling cases, we'd need the hospitalisation rate to be halving over the same time period.

I have not been keeping up that well with the thread lately so this might have been pointed out already.

"All else being equal" never exist and when periods of spread happens mostly in schools the hospitalisation rate changes compared to when the elderly are the ones hardest hit. These groups do not mingle that much, at least not here. So cases can be quite high without putting a strain on the hospitals. And the same case load can be much more serious if elderly homes are hit.

 

[FireFly]

I have not been keeping up that well with the thread lately so this might have been pointed out already.

"All else being equal" never exist and when periods of spread happens mostly in schools the hospitalisation rate changes compared to when the elderly are the ones hardest hit. These groups do not mingle that much, at least not here. So cases can be quite high without putting a strain on the hospitals. And the same case load can be much more serious if elderly homes are hit.

That's perfectly true. However in previous waves in the UK we saw the virus start spreading among young people and then gradually spread to the older age groups. Given that no attempt is being made to shield older people, I think it's reasonable to expect the same again.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Nice summary of Omicron's early findings here:

Sage data suggests Omicron patients leave hospital sooner

Recent Sage reports have stressed that we’re still waiting on a major piece of information: the average stay in hospital for Omicron patients. It could be a game-changer. If the stay halves, the Covid-handling capacity of the NHS doubles and the risk of hospitals being overwhelmed falls quite a...

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[jufonuk]

Another negative LFT result 24 hours later.

I according to the NHS can leave isolation. Woo hoo

"The self-isolation advice for people with coronavirus (COVID-19) has changed. It is now possible to end self-isolation after 7 days, following 2 negative LFDtests taken 24 hours apart. The first LFD test should not be taken before the sixth day."

 

[BadBurger]

Finally got COVID from the kids. A cold with a headache and I can't taste anything which is my biggest deception so far

Omicron, more like endemic

If you lost your sense of taste you probably have Delta.

It's getting pretty sickening seeing fear mongering return while deaths are the lowest they have been

Cases in the US are already back to their highest levels from earlier in the pandemic, with healthcare networks being pressured. We've lived through these waves before in recent memory, and were cautioned by scientists and health officials on what to expect this time around.

You should listen to some fact-based news podcasts, read some legit journalism and science news aggregators, etc. Get the real facts and daily information, because this is all stuff I hear and/or read by the time my morning coffee is drank and my big morning dump has been taken.

 

[jufonuk]

I'm going to "celebrate" by doing the most British thing. I'm going to the pub.

 

[RoboFu]

I literally posted info that showed things are as bad as they were in July of last year in some ways.


Read the thread please.

Literally in all the states I constantly look at that are all in the news like NY and FL deaths are in the single digits.

 

[Rentahamster]

Literally in all the states I constantly look at that are all in the news like NY and FL deaths are in the single digits.

Then that's your blind spot. You are selectively choosing where to look. "Literally all the states you constantly look at" is probably not a representation of the United States as a whole.

This is what I've said as recently as yesterday:

So far, this has seen a decoupling of cases vs hospitalizations that we haven't seen before, for whatever reason. Like I've said though, this doesn't mean that a giant increase in infections couldn't generate a hospital crisis from sheer brute force. We still don't know enough to be sure. We're not definitely out of the woods yet, but at the same time we're not definitely headed for disaster until we see more clear data that points in that direction.

It's promising news, but I wouldn't consider it excellent just yet.

Keep in mind the caveats that I wrote about in that post and in previous posts, along with the ones in that twitter thread. If the hospitalization rate is lower, but the increased cases brute force their way into another hospital crisis, it won't matter that omicron is less severe if so many extra people are catching it that it cancels out. Just because we see one pattern in one country doesn't necessarily mean we'll see it play out the same way in another country. In South Africa, the wave is already trending downwards. In the USA it's still going up. We don't know where the case peak will be, and thus we don't know the peak of the hospitalization wave either.

The relative decoupling of cases vs hospitalizations is big enough to be noticeable, but we still don't know why it's happening, so that's still something to watch out for. If you break down cases vs hospitalizations by state you'll see that some states are more decoupled than others. Is it because of vaccination prevalence? A recent big history of infection that conferred natural immunity? Inherently less dangerous characteristics of omicron? No one knows yet.

Just because the places you look at "seem" like they're okay now, doesn't mean that they'll stay that way and it doesn't mean that other places in the USA are experiencing similar "positive" characteristics. One of the biggest mistakes we keep making is lacking the foresight to have any kind of long term planning or proactive measures in place to stave off disaster rather than always resorting to merely reacting to disaster. If every time we see something promising we go, "Well that's that! Time to wrap it up!" without considering if it's actually true, then we're destined to repeat the same shit year after year and not learn a thing.

Look at the USA's new recorded deaths and hospitalizations. They're actually not that far away from the Delta peak. And we're not slowing down.

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

The South Africa good news only applies so much to our situation because they're already over their peak. We are not. Our cases are still going up. We're not slowing down. How do we know this? Look at the logarithmic plot of case counts. If you remember calculus class, you can see where this is potentially heading.

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

(additional graph added that only shows the delta peak and now to get an idea of the relative growth rates)

The main thing that makes me hopeful is that our vaccination numbers are still rising, which means more people are protected, and will only experience something akin to a cold. However, America being America, there are still way too many unvaccinated people, and they are going to feel the brunt of this incoming wave of infections. If we had 90%+ vaccination levels, I would be hardly worrying, since that means that our hospitals are extra protected from being overrun. However, the USA is still only at around 60% nationally, which means that our infrastructure is still vulnerable.

 

[Rentahamster]

What he was saying I took as a gross simplification. More infections, even more hospitalizations are only significant if the disease and its attendant mortality rate and treatment durations remain constant. "Hospitalization" is an indistinct metric. A person who is admitted with a broken arm, and subsequently found to be infected may count on the raw stats, but its not the same as a very sick person with multiple co-morbidities needing to be managed, circling the drain for weeks on an oxygenation ward.

While you might think it was a gross simplification, what he said, strictly speaking, wasn't wrong.

Yes, more infections/hospitalizations are significant if the mortality rate and treatment durations remain the same, but we don't know what is causing the disparity in places like South Africa and the UK, so we don't necessarily know for sure how it will impact the USA. If it's because omicron is intrinsically less lethal, then that's a good sign for everyone, but that hasn't been proven. We only have data from in vitro studies and animal models so far. On the other hand, if it turns out the biggest factor is vaccine immunity, then the states that have low vaccination rates will be in for a bad time.

 

[M. Crassus]

While you might think it was a gross simplification, what he said, strictly speaking, wasn't wrong.

Yes, more infections/hospitalizations are significant if the mortality rate and treatment durations remain the same, but we don't know what is causing the disparity in places like South Africa and the UK, so we don't necessarily know for sure how it will impact the USA. If it's because omicron is intrinsically less lethal, then that's a good sign for everyone, but that hasn't been proven. We only have data from in vitro studies and animal models so far. On the other hand, if it turns out the biggest factor is vaccine immunity, then the states that have low vaccination rates will be in for a bad time.

-Mortality rate is down significantly so far in all Omicron dominant countries
-Treatment durations are down significantly in both the UK and SA
-ICU admissions are significantly down relative to general hospital admissions
-All signs point towards diminished virulence in lung tissue vs upper airways
-Omicron is peaking very fast due to increased infectivity + shorter incubation

I think at this point it's fair to be optimistic.

 

[Rentahamster]

-Mortality rate is down significantly so far in all Omicron dominant countries
-Treatment durations are down significantly in both the UK and SA
-ICU admissions are significantly down relative to general hospital admissions

Yes but we don't really know why.

-All signs point towards diminished virulence in lung tissue vs upper airways

Maybe. All studies so far are done in mice/hamsters or in a petri dish. There are comparisons between omicron lung infection vs previous strains lung infection, but nothing about omicron lung vs upper airway infection. Only the Hong Kong study which analyzed bronchus tissue vs lung tissue.

-Omicron is peaking very fast due to increased infectivity + shorter incubation

Probably. The USA hasn't peaked yet though.

I think at this point it's fair to be optimistic.

Like I said in a previous post, there are some good signs and there are some bad signs, but ultimately, there's still a lot we don't know yet.

 

[M. Crassus]

Yes but we don't really know why.


Maybe. All studies so far are done in mice/hamsters or in a petri dish. There are comparisons between omicron lung infection vs previous strains lung infection, but nothing about omicron lung vs upper airway infection. Only the Hong Kong study which analyzed bronchus tissue vs lung tissue.


Probably. The USA hasn't peaked yet though.


Like I said in a previous post, there are some good signs and there are some bad signs, but ultimately, there's still a lot we don't know yet.

It's fair to be cautious and any of these statements individually could indeed be insignificant.. But the confluence of all of them together points towards the end of the pandemic, imo.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's fair to be cautious and any of these statements individually could indeed be insignificant.. But the confluence of all of them together points towards the end of the pandemic, imo.

The confluence is inconsequential when the component parts don't have enough confidence backing them. The South Africa and UK data is promising for their specific circumstances, but we still don't know enough to see how it'll play out in the US and the rest of the world. They might, they might not. It's still too early to say for sure. The only thing it points to is a possible outcome, not a definite one.


I am optimistic as well, but if I'm honest with myself, it's mostly due to wishful thinking.

 

[M. Crassus]

The confluence is inconsequential when the component parts don't have enough confidence backing them. The South Africa and UK data is promising for their specific circumstances, but we still don't know enough to see how it'll play out in the US and the rest of the world. They might, they might not. It's still too early to say for sure. The only thing it points to is a possible outcome, not a definite one.


I am optimistic as well, but if I'm honest with myself, it's mostly due to wishful thinking.

One more data point I'd like to add to try and push you towards the optimistic side

Covid-19 surveillance

Current data on the development of coronavirus in Denmark

www.sst.dk

Omicron has been dominant in Denmark since the 21th of December and looking at the stats, hospitalizations & deaths are stagnating and even going down today during the parabolic ascent of positive tests. Individual countries will see some variance in outcomes (Denmark is decently boosted, for example), but I just can't think of a scenario where this variant does not translate in significantly fewer problems worldwide.

 

[Clear]

While you might think it was a gross simplification, what he said, strictly speaking, wasn't wrong.

Yes, more infections/hospitalizations are significant if the mortality rate and treatment durations remain the same, but we don't know what is causing the disparity in places like South Africa and the UK, so we don't necessarily know for sure how it will impact the USA. If it's because omicron is intrinsically less lethal, then that's a good sign for everyone, but that hasn't been proven. We only have data from in vitro studies and animal models so far. On the other hand, if it turns out the biggest factor is vaccine immunity, then the states that have low vaccination rates will be in for a bad time.

My argument was based on trying to calculate total social harm, which in my opinion is the #1 thing we should care about.

I take the point that hospital/medical resources becoming stretched to breaking point by mass admissions is a real concern, however if that's a thing you are concerned about then you really absolutely need to factor in the average treatment time/care regime required per patient to get an understanding of the issue.

I feel like too many people are missing the forest for the trees in terms of fixating on singular datapoints whilst ignoring everything else around it.

 

[Rentahamster]

My argument was based on trying to calculate total social harm, which in my opinion is the #1 thing we should care about.

Being concerned about social harm is fine, but you have to admit that is a value that is hard to quantify. Public policy should be determined as empirically as possible. Cases, hospitalizations, deaths, etc are quantifiable numbers. What are the units of measurement of "social harm"? A lot of times, this involves people's feelings more than anything, such as their feelings about freedom. What is the optimal tradeoff between freedom and safety? How many lives saved is equivalent in freedom units? That is hard to say.

The better approach is to use our standard measurement of freedom and law/order, The Constitution and our current laws and executive powers mixed with federalism. Do what you can to minimize deaths (an objective standard) while being in compliance with the Constitution (a relatively objective standard). No feelings required.

I take the point that hospital/medical resources becoming stretched to breaking point by mass admissions is a real concern, however if that's a thing you are concerned about then you really absolutely need to factor in the average treatment time/care regime required per patient to get an understanding of the issue.

Who says I'm not?

It is all connected, but the relative values between infection and hospitalization are changing. A lot of things have changed between the delta variant wave and now. More people are vaccinated, which reduces hospitalizations. More therapeutics are available, which reduces hospitalizations. The last delta wave stimulated a lot of "natural immunity" that may or may not reduce omicron infections and may or may not reduce omicron hospitalizations. These effects also probably reduce the average hospital stay as well.

So far, this has seen a decoupling of cases vs hospitalizations that we haven't seen before, for whatever reason. Like I've said though, this doesn't mean that a giant increase in infections couldn't generate a hospital crisis from sheer brute force. We still don't know enough to be sure. We're not definitely out of the woods yet, but at the same time we're not definitely headed for disaster until we see more clear data that points in that direction.

I feel like too many people are missing the forest for the trees in terms of fixating on singular datapoints whilst ignoring everything else around it.

I also feel that way too but for different reasons and for different people.

 

[Rentahamster]

One more data point I'd like to add to try and push you towards the optimistic side

Covid-19 surveillance

Current data on the development of coronavirus in Denmark

www.sst.dk

Omicron has been dominant in Denmark since the 21th of December and looking at the stats, hospitalizations & deaths are stagnating and even going down today during the parabolic ascent of positive tests. Individual countries will see some variance in outcomes (Denmark is decently boosted, for example), but I just can't think of a scenario where this variant does not translate in significantly fewer problems worldwide.

That's good for Denmark, but as I have been saying, while there are general similarities from one country to the next, it's not always going to play out in exactly the same way. Denmark has done fairly well for itself over the course of the pandemic, relatively speaking. Its per capita death toll is 5 times less than the USA. If Denmark can continue their current downward trend, then great. If the USA can also do the same, then great. However, those numbers haven't manifested in the USA yet, so I'm still waiting.

 

[The Skull]

I tested positive for covid on Christmas Eve, I assume it was Omicron. Felt like I had a hangover for a day and then absolutely nothing. Whether that's due to it supposedly being milder or me being vaccinated I dunno but I'll fucking take it.

 

[Aesius]

Netherlands Announces Plan To Give People Up to Six Doses of COVID Vaccine

The Netherlands may be moving towards administering three more booster COVID-19 vaccines, two of which would be in 2022.

www.newsweek.com

The Dutch aren't messing around! How long until monthly boosters?

 

[Rentahamster]

The need for caution is stated right there in the research, if people look through the whole thing and not just the headlines. Take this new preprint from yesterday, for example.

Clinical Severity of COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Hospitals in Gauteng, South Africa During the Omicron-Dominant Fourth Wave

Background: As Omicron became the dominant variant in South Africa, little is known about the severity of its clinical presentation. We describe the clinical se

papers.ssrn.com

Results: There were 41,046, 33,423, and 133,551 SARS-CoV-2 cases in the second, third and fourth waves respectively. About 4.9% of cases were admitted to hospital during the fourth wave compared to 18.9% and 13.7% during the second and third waves (p<0.001). During the fourth wave, 28.8% of admissions were severe disease compared to 60.1% and 66.9% in the second and third waves (p<0.001). Admitted patients in the omicron-dominated fourth wave were 73% less likely to have severe disease than patients admitted during the delta-dominated third wave (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.31).

It shows us that reduced clinical severity was observed. What it doesn't tell us is why.

Conclusion: The proportion of cases admitted was lower and those admitted were less severe during the first four weeks of the Omicron-dominated fourth wave in Gauteng province of South Africa. Since any combination of a less-virulent virus, comorbidities, high immunity from prior infection(s) or vaccination may be important contributors to this clinical presentation, care should be taken in extrapolating this to other populations with different co-morbidity profiles, prevalence of prior infection and vaccination coverage.

If you look at the data, you can see that during the omicron wave, young children were a greater share of those hospitalized than before. Is that because there were less young children vaccinated? Maybe, maybe not.

While admission rates during the fourth wave dropped substantially in those aged >20 years in whom vaccination coverage was higher, this was not observed in the largely unvaccinated <20 years agegroup. In the <20 years group, the proportions of cases admitted to hospital was similar (7.1% vs 3.8% vs 6.1%) and the proportion with severe illness among admitted patients, was similar (22% vs 23.0% vs 20.4%) in the three waves, in contrast to the reductions in both admission rates and disease severity observed in the fourth wave in adults. Possible reasons for this could be that children have lower rates of prior infection (7) and/or vaccination (8)

The reasons for the lower admission rates and less severe infections in admitted patients during the Omicron-dominated fourth wave are not known but are likely to be due to a less virulent virus, and high immunity from prior infection(s) or vaccination, especially the large numbers of vaccinated individuals who had prior infection and so have "hybrid immunity" (14). A tissue-based study showed that Omicron infects the cells of the bronchus faster but cells of the lung slower than Delta (15); which may at least partially account for the less severe infections observed in the Omicron-dominated wave.

Immunity stemming from prior infection has provided protection against symptomatic infection with previous variants (16) however preliminary data from South Africa (17) suggest that reinfections with Omicron are high. While prior infection may not prevent symptomatic breakthrough infection, it may generate T-cell responses that provide protection from severe disease (18), thereby contributing, at least partially to the observed high infection rate but low severity due to Omicron. The province of Gauteng experienced a particularly severe wave of Delta infection leading to a large increase in seroprevalence following the Delta-driven third wave. If prior infection with the Delta variant specifically provides some T-cell immunity that protects against severe disease from Omicron infection, this could be a contributor to the less severe Omicron infections observed in the Omicron-driven fourth wave.

While SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection has been impacted by the emergence of variants (19), vaccination has reduced the risk of severe disease from past variants (20). Since vaccination coverage in Gauteng is higher in individuals aged above 60 years, it may have made an important contribution to the lower severity of Omicron infections, especially in the elderly. But vaccination cannot fully account for the markedly lower numbers of severe infections in 20-39 year-old individuals, as less than a third of this age group was vaccinated. One of the two vaccines being rolled out in South Africa is the Ad26.CoV2.S vaccine which generates lower antibody but better T-cell responses (21). The role of this specific vaccine in reducing disease severity but not clinical infections needs to be assessed.

A further consideration with regard to the impact of vaccines is that South Africa started vaccinations later than most high-income countries. As a result, a substantial number of vaccinated individuals had experienced prior infection. Vaccination in those with prior natural infection retains higher Omicron neutralisation than vaccination alone (22). The combination of natural immunity and vaccination may be a contributing factor to the observed lower severity of Omicron infections.

CONCLUSION Early surveillance data indicate that Omicron, which is the predominant variant during South Africa's fourth wave, is associated with lower hospital admission rates and with lower severity and lower fatality among hospitalised patients. The role of prior immunity from natural infection, vaccination and/or lower virulence needs to be investigated as all these factors may be contributing to some extent. These results may not be directly applicable to other countries and settings. It remains to be seen whether other countries experience similar lower risk of severe disease, considering the differences in population structure, co-morbidity prevalence, prevalence of prior infection and vaccination coverage. Further, in some countries, Omicron-dominated waves began during a period of high Delta transmission whereas the Omicron-dominated fourth wave in South Africa began when Delta infection rates were very low.

 

[Clear]

Who says I'm not?

None of my argument was aimed specifically at you.

I was just clarifying why -in my view- if even what Firefly asserted (and you subsequently agreed with) was factually correct, its a semantic point. Doubling the hospitalization rate is less stress on the service if the average stay time and resource cost in care drops by more than half.

Hence me stressing the crucial importance of parsing the data beyond tracking a single raw stat. In this instance "Hospitalization rate".

 

[Rentahamster]

None of my argument was aimed specifically at you.

Given the "you"s in the sentence, you'll forgive me for thinking as much.

I was just clarifying why -in my view- if even what Firefly asserted (and you subsequently agreed with) was factually correct, its a semantic point.

It's not semantic, it's math.

Doubling the hospitalization rate is less stress on the service if the average stay time and resource cost in care drops by more than half.

IF the average stay time and resource cost drops, yes. BUT that's not what F FireFly 's point was talking about. You're the one adding that extra bit at the end. You added on extra stuff he didn't say so you could disagree with a point he wasn't making.

 

[Kilau]

These infection numbers are insane. Makes you wonder what the infection numbers are like on other highly transmittable viruses that just aren't tested for.

My wife got her booster yesterday at CVS and they said every home test was sold out in the area. Local Aldi is closed for next two days because they have no staff, just crazy.

 

[Clear]

Given the "you"s in the sentence, you'll forgive me for thinking as much.

I choose "you" because my assumption is that we are speaking in broad generalities, which to me is the only good faith way to talk about a phenomenon (Covid) and a healthcare response that noone here is direct controlling.

There is no rationality in personalizing any part of this discussion. If you took it that way, then I apologize for miscommunicating my intention. I try to be reasonably careful when posting on serious topics like this, but I tend to write in a conversational manner.

 

[Rentahamster]

I choose "you" because my assumption is that we are speaking in broad generalities, which to me is the only good faith way to talk about a phenomenon (Covid) and a healthcare response that noone here is direct controlling.

There is no rationality in personalizing any part of this discussion. If you took it that way, then I apologize for miscommunicating my intention. I try to be reasonably careful when posting on serious topics like this, but I tend to write in a conversational manner.

Don't worry about it; royal "you" is fine

 

[FireFly]

None of my argument was aimed specifically at you.

I was just clarifying why -in my view- if even what Firefly asserted (and you subsequently agreed with) was factually correct, its a semantic point. Doubling the hospitalization rate is less stress on the service if the average stay time and resource cost in care drops by more than half.

Hence me stressing the crucial importance of parsing the data beyond tracking a single raw stat. In this instance "Hospitalization rate".

So say that an Omicron case is half as likely to result in a hospitalisation than a Delta case, and where a hospitalisation occurs, the average duration is half as long. Theoretically that would mean that you could have 4X more Omicron cases for the same number of people in hospital.

That would be great news. But does that mean the number of infections is now irrelevant? Well, we could be approaching 4X cases now already in the UK with the underreporting over Christmas. If cases double again, from this point, what is going to happen to hospitalisations? What if they double twice over?

I don't see how you can answer this without addressing the question of whether hospitalisations are expected to increase proportionately with the number of infections. And either you agree with me that they are (absent other factors), or you don't.

 

[Malakhov]

Seriously, not tasting anything pisses me off. Eating is one of my favorite things in this shitty world

 

[Leyasu]

None of my argument was aimed specifically at you.

I was just clarifying why -in my view- if even what Firefly asserted (and you subsequently agreed with) was factually correct, its a semantic point. Doubling the hospitalization rate is less stress on the service if the average stay time and resource cost in care drops by more than half.

Hence me stressing the crucial importance of parsing the data beyond tracking a single raw stat. In this instance "Hospitalization rate".

Doesn't it become a numbers game now though?

With infections regularly exceeding 100k a day, even if the percentage of people needing to go to hospital drops to 1 or 0.5%, that still equates to lots of people that will be needing hospital care soon.

We will find out soon enough

 

[DragoonKain]

I've seen a lot of "trust the science" people pissed at the CDC for their new recommendations saying their hand is being forced for economic reasons and they're promoting bad and unsafe policy.

None of this discourse is any good. We already have people who don't trust the CDC because they think it's some grand conspiracy for them to get people locked in their homes forever. Now the supposed rational side thinks they've been bought out by higher ups who are tired of seeing the economy suffer.

 

[poppabk]

The sheeple never learn. Once you give these people power they won't ever let it go. Soon they will only let you quarantine for 3 days, then it will be one day. Then before you know it they won't let you quarantine at all. What ever happened to my quarantine, my choice?

Turns out I wasn't being satirical in this post just off target.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

These infection numbers are insane. Makes you wonder what the infection numbers are like on other highly transmittable viruses that just aren't tested for.

My wife got her booster yesterday at CVS and they said every home test was sold out in the area. Local Aldi is closed for next two days because they have no staff, just crazy.

France is out of auto tests, we are doing 7 million per week now.

 

[caffeware]

Info that got Dr. Malone banned.



Is this bs?

 

[Rentahamster]

Is this bs?

Even the title itself is BS. "The Pfizer inoculations for COVID19 MORE HARM THAN GOOD".

Many people would have had severe illness or died if it wasn't for those Pfizer inoculations. This information has been independently verified multiple times.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[Rentahamster]

Another study (in rodents) suggesting decreased lung infectivity from omicron.

 

[cheststrongwell]

Info that got Dr. Malone banned.



Is this bs?

I'd like to see a list of the "500 doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners" in their alliance. I wonder how many of them are chiropractors and dentists.